Dueling? Murder so rare...

[JesseL]

I support laws that protect individual rights (and the biggest threat to individual rights is the government it's self). Restricting the power of government (as in the 1st and 2nd amendments to the COTUS) is completely different than restricting the rights of individuals.

Laws against dueling are not protecting anyone's individual rights. They are restricting them.

Laws against coerced confessions, pedophilia (sexual exploitation of people legally incapable of consenting due to their not having attained the age of majority), are protecting the individuals right to not be tortured or sexually abused.

I wholly support the right of adults to engage in stupid behavior as long as they limit the immediate impact of their behavior to people that have given their informed consent. I think dueling is monumentally stupid and will rarely solve anything, but it's none of my business, none of your business, and none of the governments business.

 

[PaladinX13]

Laws against dueling are not protecting anyone's individual rights. They are restricting them.

That's where I disagree. Like I said, you have a right not to be driven out of town, to not have legal death threats made against you, to not be put into a state where your emotions compromise your decision making, and have your killers get held responsible.

In Humble's case, he has a right to protest a political opponent's views without having his political career, character, and business become ruined based on a refusal to duel.

I think dueling is monumentally stupid and will rarely solve anything, but it none of my business, none of your business, and none of the governments business.

This is going back to "pure self-interest". It's none of my business until you, out of the blue, challenge me. Again, if people really want to duel such that no one else, including the government, becomes involved- they can do it. Legalization there is irrelevant.

It's only in cases where one- or both- of the parties have their decision-making so compromised, do they need the government to hold their hand through it- or arguably rescued from it if they are being coerced. The law is there to protect against that coercion (violation of freewill/rights) and against that poor decision-making state.

I'm curious... should drunk driving be legalized?

 

[Beachmaster]

I can see the new signs now..........DUEL FREE ZONE

 

[Titan6]

I've yet to see anything good about dueling that can't be either handled by courts, legal fighting absent death, or something that isn't a broad indiscriminate "freedom" argument that encompasses even consensual pedophilia.

This is the only arguement that you have made that I will accept (tentatively). I think however that this might be a lot like the millions of uses of handguns in self defense that we never hear about. We know a lot about all the bad things that came out of duels but what about the differences that were resolved? This is less tangible. After all if they lived how exciting is that to history?

I'm sure you could imagine a wonderful scenario of a sex offender, pacifist, or Democrat driven from town... it could just as easily be a minority, a gun-owner, or you.

Historically we have never needed dueling as an outlet to do these things. They still happen every day.

Why are there laws against pedophilia even if "consensual"? Why is the punishment for crimes of passion mitigated even if the action is the same? Why are confessions given under coercion inadmissible even if true?

Because the will- rational thought and choice- is compromised.

In children rational thought and will are not yet developed, not compromised. Therefore your whole comparison of dueling to baby raping rings false. A mature adult has the capacity to reason but many choose not to. This is a choice, not a physical impediment. Certainly the mentally defective would be prevented from dueling or else the challenger would face great shame. If people can not work out their differences and emotions logically there should be other outlets. Also I have never agreed with the whole "crime of passion" or "temporary insanity" plea. After all the act taken is still likely that the person would have liked to see happen anyway.... Furthermore I have no idea what you are talking about with confessions under coercion not being allowed. The right against self incrimination was repealed with the Patriot Act. In fact I think we just had a couple of high profile "trials" whereby the person was tortured into giving a confession....

Our government has taken a few huge steps backwards recently. Why not go backwards with it all the way? Fighting decay and rot is pointless...

 

[JesseL]

That's where I disagree. Like I said, you have a right not to be driven out of town, to not have legal death threats made against you, to not be put into a state where your emotions compromise your decision making, and have your killers get held responsible.

I agree you have a right not to be driven out of town or suffer death threats. I do not agree that legalized duel is equivalent to these things. As for being put in a state where your emotions compromise your decision making ability, you are dead wrong. You are solely responsible for your emotions, no one else can be. If you choose to allow yourself to become angry and make bad choices, you have chosen to make bad choices. Do not displace the blame for your lack of self control.

In Humble's case, he has a right to protest a political opponent's views without having his political career, character, and business become ruined based on a refusal to duel.

No, he does not. Everyone must suffer the consequences of their actions. If one of the consequences of your actions is that people withdraw their respect for you, so be it. Lots of people have seen their reputations ruined for making perfectly legal choices.

I'm curious... should drunk driving be legalized?

Driving on public roads while too intoxicated to safely operate a vehicle clearly endangers the lives of people that have not consented to such endangerment, it should continue to be illegal.

If someone wants to organize a a drunken demolition derby on a private course, I say more power to them.

 

[PaladinX13]

If someone wants to organize a a drunken demolition derby on a private course, I say more power to them.

What about televised gladiatorial events?

 

[JesseL]

What about televised gladiatorial events?

Absolutely. Is that really such a leap beyond pro boxing? As long they know what they're getting into, everybody's got the right to go to hell in their own way.

 

[Titan6]

What about televised gladiatorial events?

What is NASCAR? What is Football? Gladitorial contests with lower body counts... There is a certain element that watches the races for the crashes, Everyone watches the football game to see who has the strongest, fastest smartest players; who can take the most punishement. The risk of injury is high. Nearly every week someone is injured seriously, death is even a possibility.

 

[PaladinX13]

Absolutely. Is that really such a leap beyond pro boxing?

I'd say it's a mite different, yes. It's strangely ironic that you use idealistic notions of no social costs and no incidents of coercion from these things that you'd permit... based on cynicism!

 

[JesseL]

I'd say it's a mite different, yes.

Really? Isn't boxing primarily about causing enough injury to your opponent that he is no longer able to continue the fight (by his own determination or the referee's)?

It's strangely ironic that you use idealistic notions of no social costs and no incidents of coercion from these things that you'd permit... based on cynicism!

First, I think "social cost" is a false concept used as a justification for exercising control over individuals when no rational justification can be found. Second, just because coercion could happen is no excuse for preemptively dictating people's lives. This is as silly as the anti-gunners argument that law-abiding people shouldn't have guns because they might just flip out and murder someone.

If someone is involved in fraud, coercion, extortion, etc. with regard to any of these consensual crimes; prosecute them for it - otherwise learn to butt out of people's lives.

You should read over this book.

 

[PaladinX13]

Really? Isn't boxing primarily about causing enough injury to your opponent that he is no longer able to continue the fight (by his own determination or the referee's)?

Yes, really. Being no longer able to continue a fight by someone's determination is different than being no longer able to continue any fight by everyone's determination. While life is risk and everything- including boxing- has elements of risk, there's a mite difference between the possibility of death and the veritable guarantee of it.

We're going to have to part ways if you don't think there would be a social cost to televised "consensual" killing for entertainment.

 

[seeker_two]

Dueling....sure. Why not? As long as both parties are willing.....

Maybe we could bring back bundling and trial by ordeal as well....

 

[JesseL]

We're going to have to part ways if you don't think there would be a social cost to televised "consensual" killing for entertainment.

I think that the 'social cost' (assuming that such a thing exists), is irrelevant to the question of whether the government should restrict it. Our nation is founded on the principle of ensuring everyone's right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", not ensuring a beautiful and moral society.

If TV broadcasters were showing people killing each other for the purpose of entertainment (hang on a sec, aren't they already doing that?), I fail to see how it would impact anyone else's rights.

 

[Geronimo45]

What is NASCAR? What is Football? Gladitorial contests with lower body counts

You forgot hockey. They're always beating each other up, there.

 

[PaladinX13]

I think that the 'social cost' (assuming that such a thing exists), is irrelevant to the question of whether the government should restrict it.

I disagree... my sense is that's basically the only legitimate role the government has: to be arbiter when the actions of purely self-interested actors are insufficient to assure the greater (and individual) good. The Tragedy of the Commons. In all other cases, the government should not be involved.

The Founders understood this otherwise they would not have had provisions for regulating common "Commons".

Our nation is founded on the principle of ensuring everyone's right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", not ensuring a beautiful and moral society.

I agree that in a broad sense, philosophical morality is not the business of the government. However, too often those with views such as yours are quick to abandon morality in its entirety:

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." -John Adams

Our system of government isn't built to work with purely self-interested persons and it's extreme to adopt that as a total-life philosophy, beyond government intervention, but even individual attitudes and actions.

If TV broadcasters were showing people killing each other for the purpose of entertainment (hang on a sec, aren't they already doing that?), I fail to see how it would impact anyone else's rights.

Again, they're not... the guarantee versus risk makes all the difference. As for how it impacts anyone else's rights, as I said, we part ways here.

 

[Well Regulated]

Dueling is Self-executing

Duelng was a major problem in Virginia/West Virginia and Kentucky past the 19th century. Virginia1774 has some intersting cases on it. It appears that it was very difficult to get a conviction by juries who were in favor of it.

http://www.virginia1774.org/RoyallvThomas.html

http://www.virginia1774.org/Cullen%20v.%20Common.html

http://www.virginia1774.org/CourtMartialDueling1778.html

 

[Titan6]

If TV broadcasters were showing people killing each other for the purpose of entertainment (hang on a sec, aren't they already doing that?), I fail to see how it would impact anyone else's rights.

Again, they're not... the guarantee versus risk makes all the difference. As for how it impacts anyone else's rights, as I said, we part ways here.

Sure they are. They have been since the Vietnam War.

I disagree... my sense is that's basically the only legitimate role the government has: to be arbiter when the actions of purely self-interested actors are insufficient to assure the greater (and individual) good. The Tragedy of the Commons. In all other cases, the government should not be involved.

The Founders understood this otherwise they would not have had provisions for regulating common "Commons".

I agree that in a broad sense, philosophical morality is not the business of the government. However, too often those with views such as yours are quick to abandon morality in its entirety:

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." -John Adams

Our system of government isn't built to work with purely self-interested persons and it's extreme to adopt that as a total-life philosophy, beyond government intervention, but even individual attitudes and actions.

Given the level of dominance and self interest that the government now enjoys this is totally laughable. The founders never intended that the government grow to the size and power that it now enjoys. If you really believe that our government is religous and moral you have not paying attention to it for a very long time.

 

[JesseL]

I agree that in a broad sense, philosophical morality is not the business of the government. However, too often those with views such as yours are quick to abandon morality in its entirety:

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." -John Adams

Our system of government isn't built to work with purely self-interested persons and it's extreme to adopt that as a total-life philosophy, beyond government intervention, but even individual attitudes and actions.

I agree with you here. I think that our nation and society depends on moral people acting out of more than self-interest. But, nobody has ever created morality through legislation. I think people keep attempting to do so because on the surface it appears workable, logical and easy. Every time they try it though, it results in further corruption, and deeper depravity and degradation.

If you really want to see a sane, moral, happy, healthy society - you need to help create it through your own actions. Set an example by being a good parent, a scrupulous businessman, a good friend, and a good neighbor. Support others who do the same. Don't allow anyone to goad you into betraying your principles.

Don't fall into the trap of trying to use government force to make people be good.

 

[PaladinX13]

I agree with you here. I think that our nation and society depends on moral people acting out of more than self-interest. But, nobody has ever created morality through legislation.

Well, except in a specific sense that things are "good". Underlying all legislation ultimately there is morality in play. This is differently from legislating morality, but laws should be coming from and asked for by a moral people.

I think people keep attempting to do so because on the surface it appears workable, logical and easy. Every time they try it though, it results in further corruption, and deeper depravity and degradation.

I agree with this in the sense of trying to govern morality. When morality is imposed instead of a freewill decision, the becomes only about the law and frustrates those trying to govern their behavior- passing more and more laws (and precisely the situation we find ourselves in).

This is why, to me, the preservation of freewill is important and how I believe things like duels and TV bloodsport degrade the ability to make freewill decisions. I understand you believe in the freewill choice to duel or gratuitously kill on television. I've already expressed how I feel dueling is done outside of normal freewill by default, as for bloodsports, I'd say those go towards indoctrination and/or the numbing of society's conscience. I don't want to glibly say, "Bread and circuses" but it would essentially be that. Junk food for the mind that creates a callous people oblivious to the nation around them is collapsing.

 

[JesseL]

Junk food for the mind that creates a callous people oblivious to the nation around them is collapsing.

It seems to me that that argument just leads back to the justifying the banning of anything that irks the moral majority.

 

[Archie]

I'm for it.

The modern law enforcement - judicial system is a method of protecting people from the repercussions of their own conduct.

Dueling enforces politeness and mutual respect instead of 'political correctness'. Want to insult and denigrate someone? Fine, but you can't hide behind your attorney.

Having said that, a duel is between two agreeing parties with safeguards to protect innocent bystanders. Duels would have certain standards of conduct and protocol.

 

[akodo]

Yes Paladin, the vast majority of violent criminals - and I include child molestors in this definition - are predators. They prey on the weak and avoid the strong. So yes, I will use any and all tools at my disposal to accomplish my goals. I didn't see the SOBs giving a fair break to their victims.
Bullies don't like to fight - they like to beat people up. Use that to your advantage

So why wait for legalized duels? Why not just shoot them illegally and be done with it.

Remember, duels were first introduced not because people were being failed by the legal system, but because people were getting pissed and murdering eachother. Duels were a way of murdering later...with the idea that there would be a chance to allow them to cool down and not fight, or at least the antagonist might think twice about starting a fight if he knew his opponent was equally armed, rather than getting all 'you dissed my new sneakers, I am going to jump up without warning and pop a cap in your ass'

But really, what I read in Biker's posts is arguing for is a legal way to hunt down and shoot to death criminals who have avoided prosecution, or those who have served their time and gotten out. The duel is just the cover. Or, if they refuse to duel, the harrasment and threat of the duel will drive them away.

So as a soicety, should we be allowed to 'run people out of town' or even kill them if we disagree with how they were treated by the judicial branch? Our forefathers desgined a government where they would rather see 100 criminals go free rather than 1 man wrongly imprisoned. Is this because they figured society would always contain a few individuals who would illegally act as vigilantees and eliminate the ones the courts couldn't get past 'reasonable doubt'?

 

[Caimlas]

Under any normal situation, I disagree with it wholeheartedly.

The only exception I can think of would be in the case of bodily harm done to one's loved ones, in leau of the criminal sentencing. "The convicted may plea for a duel with the father of his rape victim to the cost of a 10-year sentence reduction."

But then, I'm a general fan of the Old Norse system of justice. Fairly barbaric at times, it was also quite elegant.

 

[Titan6]

Akado: Your are missing the point. Duels would have to be consensual. Paladin's point is that the challenged party would suffer from a diminished emotional capacity and be unable to make a rational decision.